On the one hand I totally agree- not only is it plainly in the terms of use, but one would think it is pretty obvious that you’d be banned from just about anywhere for pretending to be the owner or work there or even for general identity fraud, especially when there is obvious intent of malice.
That said- where I do see validity on the complaints is in the supposed free speech absolutism. Outside of anarchists, anyone who says that no right or action should have no limitations is generally full of crap.
So where I see a valid complain by those imitating Musk or others who were banned is that his general outward image about freedom of speech was misrepresented. Twitter had banned users for harmful or potentially harmful or misleading conduct, which he basically made a public show of saying was wrong and wasn’t how he’d do things. He the reinstated most of those previously banned for such actions- and then proceeded to ban or suspend people for possibly harmful and deceptive posting.
The fact it is a rule isn’t the issue on wether there is valid criticism- it is the fact that the rule exists and is enforced under a man who had stood on a soap box saying that filtering potentially harmful or misleading conduct by social media “elites” and such was a tool of bias and repression- but then he also filtered content because it didn’t suit him. It undercuts any sort of idea he was trying to sell that he was standing up against media bias or that he somehow supported all free speech regardless of wether some “gate keeper” decided it was dangerous or inconvenient. Of course there must be rules, but to essentially say a rule is unjust and then to invoke that same rule on that same principle selective to your disposition shows one doesn’t have a problem with control, they only have a problem with who wields the control. Like overthrowing a dictator because no one man should rule vs. overthrowing a dictator and installing a people’s government. Distinctly different motives.
That said- where I do see validity on the complaints is in the supposed free speech absolutism. Outside of anarchists, anyone who says that no right or action should have no limitations is generally full of crap.
So where I see a valid complain by those imitating Musk or others who were banned is that his general outward image about freedom of speech was misrepresented. Twitter had banned users for harmful or potentially harmful or misleading conduct, which he basically made a public show of saying was wrong and wasn’t how he’d do things. He the reinstated most of those previously banned for such actions- and then proceeded to ban or suspend people for possibly harmful and deceptive posting.